Posted on 12/14/2016 4:03:05 AM PST by drewh
Twice in less than two decades the majority vote in a presidential election was overruled by the math of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers created the electoral college to make sure that voters in concentrated urban areas would not be able to neglect the concerns of the rural population. But many people believe that the concept of democracy is undermined when a President is put into office without gaining majority support from the voters.
The results of the Trump/Clinton contest have led to calls for the electors to cast “faithless” votes for the winner of the popular vote, Hillary Clinton, and even for a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral college.
A group called National Popular Vote has a proposed National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. And it does not require a Constitutional Amendment. Steve Silberstein, a successful businessman, co-founder of the computer software company Innovative Interfaces Inc. (one of the world’s largest suppliers of computer systems to libraries), and Board member of National Popular Vote, answered my questions about their proposal.
What was the problem the electoral college was intended to fix?
The Founding Fathers did not want the Congress to choose the President (they did not want a Parliamentary system), so they asked the state legislatures to do so. The electoral college turns over the selection of the President to the individual state legislators, who appoint electors that they think represent the interests of their individual states.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
The US is a representative republic, not a democracy.
Get over it, snowflake.
First sentence alert!
No candidate received a majority of the vote. The majority voted against each candidate.
-PJ
Well, sure....maybe if you want to vet that popular vote and back out the fraud first..............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Minow
Nell Minow is an American film reviewer and writer who writes and speaks frequently on film, media, and corporate governance and investing. Ms. Minow was named one of the 20 most influential people in corporate governance by Directorship magazine in 2007. She was dubbed “the queen of good corporate governance” by BusinessWeek Online in 2003 [1][not in citation given] and has received Lifetime Achievement awards from both the International Corporate Governance Network [2] and Corporate Secretary Magazine.[3]
The daughter of Josephine (Baskin) and former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton N. Minow, and sister of Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and library law expert Mary Minow, she is a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College (1974) and the University of Chicago Law School, J.D., (1977).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_N._Minow
Newton Norman Minow (born January 17, 1926) is an American attorney and former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission. His speech referring to television as a “vast wasteland” is cited even as the speech has passed its 50th anniversary. While still maintaining a law practice, Minow is currently the Honorary Consul General of Singapore in Chicago.[1]
Minow has been active in Democratic party politics. He is an influential attorney in private practice concerning telecommunications law and is active in many nonprofit, civic, and educational institutions. Barack Obama named him a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for 2016.
>>But many people believe that the concept of democracy is undermined when a President is put into office without gaining majority support from the voters.
The reality of democracy is proven when politicians pander to special interest groups and give away tax dollars to buy votes.
I liked the good old days of two months ago when Proggie were orgasmic over the unlikelihood that Trump could “flip the Blue Wall” or win those “key battleground states”.
They were four-square behind the prescribed Constitutional method in 2008 and 2012 as well as 1992.
After reviewing Obama's election, I came to the conclusion that it was totally about the math....picking particular districts in order to defeat the purpose of the electoral college.
The same pattern was followed this year.
The problem was...they went after the exact same base....and forgot "We, the American workers"...."We, the ones who are always picking up the tab"....."We, the people who think killing babies in the womb is murder"....."We, the people who still believe in family....man, woman and children"....
The electoral college in each State ratifies the popular vote in each State. So, what’s the problem?
Not really. "Stayed home" has been the choice of a larger percentage of the citizenry than the winner of almost every presidential elections since George Washington -- who ran unopposed. Lincoln won in 1860 with 39.8% of the popular vote. That was enough for the Civil War.
Hillary didn't receive votes from even half of those who bothered to cast votes.
In other words the Constitution worked.
A Constitutional Republic.
"The Founding Fathers created the electoral college to make sure that voters in concentrated urban areas would not be able to neglect the concerns of the rural population."
That's true. I wonder if the Founding Fathers also had it in mind that it would also make it much more difficult for a corrupt political party to secure permanent control of the Presidential election process by simply importing millions of new voters from Mexico and the Middle East.
I'm thinking the answer may just well be YES. In any case it worked.
If you want to maximize the power of each individual voter, to maximize the possibility that their one vote can flip the course of an election, the Electoral College is the way to go.
Mathematical proof - “Math Against Tyranny”:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
The left wants to eliminate the electoral college because with a popular vote, voter fraud anywhere is voter fraud everywhere.
It allows states like California to dictate the results of the election by giving the vote to criminal invaders. No thanks.
The National Popular Vote initiative will go nowhere. Red States and swing states would lose their political clout under it.
Had the system been in place for this election, they would have been forced to award their electoral votes to Hillary Clinton even though the people of their states voted for Trump.
As an interstate compact, it also would need congressional consent. There is nothing with the Electoral College that needs fixing and the only time it needs to be fixed, we’re told - is when the Left has lost an election.
But there’s nothing self-serving or partisan about their wanting to force Red States and Purple States into voting for a Democratic presidential candidate from here to eternity. Yeah, right.
Each state should reflect each state°s vote.
Each state should reflect each state°s vote.
The Left cares so much about the will of the people, it moves to subvert an election when it doesn’t like the outcome.
They love democracy only when they win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.